Miranda Devine: A split decision on Pell is worst possible outcome for supporters
The split decision to dismiss Pell’s conviction makes it impossible for those of us who believe Pell is innocent to accept the decision or to have any faith in Victoria’s criminal justice system.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A split decision in the Cardinal George Pell appeal is the worst possible outcome. It leaves people following the case with insurmountable doubt about the jury’s guilty verdict.
It makes it impossible for those of us who believe Pell is innocent to accept the decision or to have any faith in Victoria’s criminal justice system.
This is conviction by zeitgeist. Pell, once the Vatican’s third most senior official, has been crucified for the past sins of the Catholic Church.
It doesn’t matter how many times people insist he is not being held accountable for the historic evils of child sexual abuse and coverups in the church. I believe that an innocent man is in jail.
He was convicted of sexually abusing two choir boys in a busy cathedral two decades ago on the word of one anonymous person, with no other witnesses, no forensic evidence and no confession.
The case against him depended entirely on the jury believing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the sole complainant was telling the truth, without any independent support of his allegations.
What’s more, the jury did not ever see the complainant testify in person. All they saw was a recording of his evidence to a previous jury which had been unable to reach a verdict.
However, today’s two-one verdict in the Victorian Appeal Court means that one judge dissented: Justice Mark Weinberg, the intellectual leader of the Victorian bench and former Commonwealth director of Public Prosecutions.
He knows an unreasonable verdict when he sees one.
He declared the jury’s conviction of Pell to be “unreasonable” because they should have had reasonable doubt about the only evidence there was – the sole complainant’s testimony.
Weinberg found in his dissenting judgement that, “at times, the complainant was inclined to embellish aspects of his account… that his evidence contained discrepancies, displayed inadequacies, and otherwise lacked probative value so as to cause (Weinberg) to have a doubt as to the applicant’s guilt. He could not exclude as a reasonable possibility that some of what the complainant said was concocted.”
The complainant’s account of the second incident in which Pell was supposed to have molested him in a corridor, Weinberg found was “entirely implausible and quite unconvincing”.
But Pell’s appeal failed because the other two judges, Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and Chris Maxwell, believed the complainant.
After viewing the videotape of his evidence they said he was “clearly not a liar, was not a fantasist and was a witness of truth … he came across as someone who was telling the truth. He did not seek to embellish his evidence or tailor it in a manner favourable to the prosecution.”
So there you have it. That is the strength of the case that has locked a 78-year-old man in jail and destroyed his reputation after a lifetime of devotion to the church and its good works.
His own counsel, experienced barrister Robert Richter QC, didn’t represent Pell at his appeal as he was too angry and upset by the verdict.
I believe Pell made a great mistake in his trial by not giving evidence, despite wanting to. Pell would have made an impressive witness. He is a man of integrity and gravitas and I think the jury would have believed his version of events.
Then of course there is over a decade of vilification of Pell by the media which tainted the community from whom a jury would be selected.
It should go without saying that if you believe, as I do, that this verdict is a travesty of justice, it does not mean you support child molesters. It does not mean you absolve the Catholic Church of the evils that were done in its name. Quite the opposite.
But it does not help victims if an innocent man is jailed, and if a jury can convict on such evidence, none of us is safe.